The intrinsic and extrinsic matters of photographs

<p>Fred: "The photographer or painter has used very specific tools in order to elicit some pretty specific responses (or at least types of responses). I don't see as much talk about those things in these forums . . . how specifically what we do with our medium affects our viewer."<br>

All I would add to this is that, as visual creatures, we are susceptible to the impact of light and lack there of, on our psyche. As such, artists use light and shade to promote that impact. Often we (or at least I) underestimate the impact of 'darkness' in a piece of work (but I am learning it's importance more and more) until we reflect on it in a somewhat dissectible manner. Sensory deprivation, or in this case, the substitute of light with darkness encourages a dramatic response because what we don't see is substituted by what our mind's eyes see. Perhaps this visual substitution relies on the cultural, social, historical and background forces both Fred and Don refer to in order to allow us to see clearly.</p>

‘The intrinsic matters of the Moss/Depp photo and your own: Yours, black and white; Moss/Depp, color. Yours, street; Moss/Depp, set up. Each has a perspective/camera angle intrinsic to it’.

Yes, Fred, and the camera and lens used, the time of day, and what colour shoes they were wearing etc. The only true value is the photographer’s motivation and what effect it has on you: extrinsic.

“Riefenstahl was, indeed, a wonderful, horrible woman”

She was a propagandist for a regime whose coin was torture, genocide, and mass murder on epic proportions. If your definition is used of intrinsic is used it is impossible, at least for me, to look beyond the blood dripping from her hands as it would to admire the skills of a torturer.

<p>Ooops</p>

<p >‘The intrinsic matters of the Moss/Depp photo and your own: Yours, black and white; Moss/Depp, color. Yours, street; Moss/Depp, set up. Each has a perspective/camera angle intrinsic to it’.</p>

<p >Yes, Fred, and the camera and lens used, the time of day, and what colour shoes they were wearing etc. The only true value is the photographer’s motivation and what effect it has on you: extrinsic.</p>

<p >“Riefenstahl was, indeed, a wonderful, horrible woman”</p>

<p >She was a propagandist for a regime whose coin was torture, genocide, and mass murder on epic proportions. If your definition is used of intrinsic is used it is impossible, at least for me, to look beyond the blood dripping from her hands as it would to admire the skills of a torturer. </p>

 

<p>Allen--</p>

<p>Of what relevance is shoe color?</p>

<p>What do you do if you don't have access to the photographer's motivation? According to what you say, without that information, no photograph you see has any value. Perfectly valid way of operating. Seems restrictive.</p>

<p>“According to what you say, without that information, no photograph you see has any value’</p>

<p>When did I say that....? What I did say was that the process used, whether bw, digital or film....or, what colour shoes the photographer wears is mostly irrelevant .</p>

<p>It’s about the photograph, the motivation of the photographer; to try to understand why they took that image, what are they saying,</p>

<p>"When did I say that....?"<br /> <br /><strong> Allen Herbert: Feb 03, 2009 06:49 p.m.: </strong>"The only true value is the photographer’s motivation and what effect it has on you."</p>

<p>If we know nothing about the photographer/filmmaker or the history of <em>Olympiad</em>, we could only ponder the motivation of the filmmaker. My guess is we would project some motivation based on what we were seeing, which would be much more a projection than a motivation. Let's say we admire what we see. We then learn of her horrible motivations and our opinion changes. That's kind of what I'm getting at. There's no right and wrong here, but there's something going on that I, at least, recognize.</p>

<p>To many artists and craftspeople -- painters who use oil or watercolors and photographers who work in black and white or color -- the process/medium used is of great relevance. Have you ever noticed the difference in the way Ansel Adams approached his large format stuff and the way he approached his Polaroid stuff? Quite often, the vision of a good photographer and a good artist is inextricable from the medium used. Though medium or process may not be relevant to you, and yours is an understandable approach, it is false to say it "is mostly irrelevant."</p>

<p>Generally speaking, however, you are right, that the color of the shoes of the photographer is not relevant, except perhaps in a color self portrait.</p>

<p >‘My guess is we would project some motivation based on what we were seeing, which would be much more a projection than a motivation’. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >My guess is we always project some motivation of our own on what we are seeing it is our nature to do so, however, it is about what the photographer is seeing and what they are communicating to truly understand.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >'To many artists and craftspeople -- painters who use oil or watercolors and photographers who work in black and white or color -- the process/medium used is of great relevance. Have you ever noticed the difference in the way Ansel Adams approached his large format stuff and the way he approached his Polaroid stuff”.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >The tools of expression and creativity are just the tools of creativity and expression. A creative person can project their vision through many different tools of creativity as you pointed out with your Ansell Adams example. Yes, some tools/mediums become part of that creativity but only because the photographer decides so. The vision and creativity is the Art not the medium the individual chooses to express themselves in.</p>

<p >The red shoes might well be a tool of the photographer’s creativity merely because they give happy feeling wearing them.</p>

<p > Perhaps you should try on a pair of red shoes, Fred, to see if it is so ;)</p>

 

<p>"The vision and creativity is the Art not the medium the individual chooses to express themselves in."</p>

<p>I don't see the vision, creativity, medium, choices of the individual as separable. Art, for me, is about all of it. I don't hang photographers' motivations on my wall. I hang phototographs up there.</p>

<p>"Perhaps you should try on a pair of red shoes, Fred, to see if it is so ;)"</p>

<p>OK. I promise tomorrow I'll go out and shoot a pic of an unsuspecting guy down on his luck sitting in a doorway. Only then will I know your joy. Give me a break!</p>

<p >“I don't see the vision, creativity, medium, choices of the individual as separable. Art, for me, is about all of it. I don't hang photographers' motivations on my wall. I hang phototographs up there.”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Neither do i, however, choice of medium is the lesser part of the equation. To feel and comprehend the Photograph’s motivation, creativity, and vision is to understand. The Photograph i posted was not just about someone down on his luck; it was the story it tells, not just about a one dimensional simple thought. </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >It is very easy, Fred, to be trapped into intrinsic values, the face value, and miss the bigger picture....and, the bigger picture is what it is all about.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >“OK. I promise tomorrow I'll go out and shoot a pic of an unsuspecting guy down on his luck sitting in a doorway. Only then will I know your joy. Give me a break!”</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >Cool, will you be wearing a pair of red shoes? The whole experience might be very beneficial doing and wearing something totally out of character. It might give a surge to your creative juices, Fred, by looking and being in the world in a bit differrent way.</p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p > </p>

<p >And, hey, take a break. May i suggest a nice cup of Earl Grey tea with one brown sugar;)</p>

 

<p>Actually, if you would stop suggesting what you think would benefit me, we'd get along better. Thanks.</p>

<p>Fred, for my part, i thought we were getting on just fine.<br>

 <br>

 <br>

Oh well.</p>

<p>Actually, no, many of your comments to me are interesting and stimulating and many of your comments about me come across as condescending. </p>

<p>'many of your comments about me come across as condescending.'</p>

<p>It's just my style of writing and sense of humour,Fred. No offence.</p>